On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:58 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5 February 2010 21:53, Gregory Maxwell
<gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, Cortado works in more places but there is no
reason that BOTH
can't be used, extending support to places with silverlight but
without Java.
The thirty-second startup time of Java for Cortado makes it unusable,
in my experience. Here's to Firefox 3.5.
Geesh. What JVM is this? I just stop-watched it here on
http://myrandomnode.dyndns.org:8080/~gmaxwell/cortest/cortest1.html
and timed a bit over 3 seconds... fresh browser reload, no prior java
applets run, random 1.6ghz x86_64 laptop, and whatever JVM fedora 12
shipped with.
But yes, I'd hope and expect the silverlight stuff to load faster.
Indeed. What's the performance of the Flash
ActiveScript Theora
decoder like? Horrible, or just bad?
I'm guessing you meant Vorbis, as there is no Theora port. I've not
benchmarked it, but it's supposedly a "significant multiple of
realtime", but I think significant is something like 10x, which
doesn't bode well for a video codec implementation.
The testing I did with the C->flash compiler on another audio codec
convinced me that it could be made to work... though the performance
may not ultimately be satisfactory. (e.g. it may only work acceptably
on fast computers, at low resolutions, etc). Although the flash vm
might be a lot faster by the time its done. I think it is somewhat
moot to speculate on it when it doesn't exist and, as far as I know,
no one is actively working on it.
In other news, There is some progress being made on an installable
video native code tag for IE.
(
http://cristianadam.blogspot.com/2010/01/ie-tag.html there should be
some more news on this in a few days)
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi,
Providing support for Silverlight means that it needs to be tested tp ensure
that the support remains stable. Silverlight does not really add value as
far as I understand it. It competes with more open standards so reasons can
be easily found not to support it. We have to invest in supporting
Silverlight, the question is, how does it help us, our readers.
We have a reputation that we support open standards ... so how open is
Silverlight ?
David's post isn't about "supporting silverlight" it's about
(ab)using
it to shim in support for open formats for IE users.
The current video infrastructure supports a half dozen different modes
of playback, maintaining one more would be work, but I think it would
have a decent value especially compared to some of the ones already
there (VLC plugin? oy)
As far as openness goes, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novell_Moonlight
But I think it's quite reasonable to have different expectations for a
technology used as an openness shim. For example, using flash
normally has the effect of promoting a proprietary-web but if you use
flash only as a <canvas> replacement for IE users it has a neutral or
the opposite long term effect.
To the best of my ability to tell, Silverlight is in a much stronger
openness position than Flash is, for whatever thats worth. Microsoft
has been rather giving and inclusive in this particular bid for world
domination. ;)